New Canadian Climate Policy to Be Built on a Lie

With stunning disregard for a decade's worth of scientific research in the area of climate change, Environment Canada has added this paragraph to their public discussion of the Greenhouse Effect:

“There is a great deal of uncertainty associated with climate predictions and, although temperature changes during this century are consistent with global warming predictions, they remain within the range of natural variability.”

Uncertainty is a reliable feature of climate science, but the statement that temperature changes during this century “remain within the range of natural variability” is decidedly and verfiably false. This represents a flagrant misrepresentation and politicization of science.

The Union of Concerned Scientists addresses the question thusly:

The Role of Natural Variability

Human-induced warming is superimposed on natural processes to produce the observed climate. Because these natural fluctuations (which are always present) play a role in determining the precise magnitude and distribution of temperature in a particular year, record warmth in any one year is not in itself highly significant. What is noteworthy, however, is that global average temperatures experienced a net rise over the twentieth century, and the average rate of this rise has been increasing. When scientists attempt to reproduce these twentieth century trends in their climate models, they are only able to do so when including human-produced heat-trapping emissions in addition to natural causes.

It was bad enough that the Conservative Party was prepared to flout the truth in challenging climate science. It is a scandal that the Tories should have forced a formerly reputable scientific institution like Environment Canada to do the same.

Do you really think all those scientists writing all those studies telling us we should be be concerned wouldn’t take such things into consideration? Do you think scientists are aware of all these little skeptic “factiods” like the “little ice age” and “solar variability” when they make their conclusions? If they aren’t, maybe you should call them all up and let them know about this nugget of wisdom.

Actually the premise is correct. Climate models use parameterizations because computers cannot explicitly solve partial differential equations and integrations. Equation-solving “schemes” must be used. Thus, the solutions, when you tweak the parameterizations <i>and even the equation-solving schemes themselves</i>, come out different. And the problem is magnified when you tweak initial conditions, which is done all the time based on new data coming in. To say it’s an inexact science is an understatement, and the politicization of the topic will get us nowhere.

That being said, the warming is happening, and we should now focus on how to curb it, if indeed we can at all. And remember, mother Earth has proven to be a more wonderful self-healer than we give her credit for.

But I have to ask: what’s decent and right, in your eyes? It’s obvious you don’t think it’s the Conservatives, so is decent and right a) someone who steals BILLIONS of your and my tax dollars to line their own pockets, exhibiting exactly zero stance on everything, except USA hatred, or b) a party who wants to sit down, have tea and crumpets and “negotiate” with the Taliban? Someone else?

…that it was bad for the Liberals to lie (which is a reasonable proposition), but somehow now bad for the Tories to lie? We’re not arbiters of decency and rectitude here; we just want these guys to tell the truth about climate change.

What is decent and right in my eyes is being truthful. I agree that the Liberals had their problems with the sponsorship scandal, however, it was over the theft of $200-300 million, not “BILLIONS.” You’re $700-800 million off. It still is a lot of money, mind you, but in the grand scheme of things, over the 5 years or so it was in effect, it cost the average taxpayer a total of $15 or so. It’s upsetting, but it’s nothing to get your stomach all tied up about. The punishments are beginning to be doled out to those who deserve it.

Why do you, as a Conservative supporter (I assume you are since you so vociferously assailed my post), always seem to think those who are so concerned about climate change are anti-American? You’re picking a fight is what you’re doing. I never mentioned the conflict in Afghanistan. I was only talking about climate change.

However, now that you’ve brought it up, I actually do not oppose the Conservatives’ position on Afghanistan. I think what Layton and his supporters are doing is appalling, like Neville Chamberlain in Britain trying to appease the Nazis.

And about exhibiting “zero stance on anything,” you’re targeting the wrong person.

Enough of the off-topic babble. Let’s take this outside DeSmogBlog, OK? E-mail me at [email protected] and we’ll settle this.

The line you cite from the government website doesn’t seem to be there. Am I just missing it? Or have they already altered it? I notice that it posts an update date of Sept 14th. I also had no success searching out the line in the wayback machine.

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE